NANCY PELOSI’S INFRASTUCTURE TASK: TOASTERS, CAR WASHES, AND TIGHTROPES

 In the motion picture Apollo 13, as the crippled spacecraft hurtled home after the aborted moon landing, the astronauts tackled the delicate job of powering up their frozen command module after days of what amounted to cold storage in space. Astronaut Jack Swigert, portrayed by actor Kevin Bacon, noticed condensation forming on many of the craft’s instruments as the crew turned them on. “What’s the deal on this stuff shorting out?” Swigert asked mission control. “Just have to take it one step at a time, Jack,” came the reply. Swigert then said, to no one in particular, “This is like trying to drive a toaster through a car wash.”    

Almost every American wants improved infrastructure. People know that we suffer

from crumbling roads and bridges and that many countries in the industrialized world with which the United States competes are far outspending us in that arena. Democrats and Republicans, who often can’t concur on whether the sky is blue, agree about infrastructure. 

That being the case, why has getting infrastructure legislation through Congress been so difficult? As work on the issue resumes, it’s clear the path has gotten harder, not easier.  The reasons lie in the culture of the two political parties. If the United States is

going to get an infrastructure package this fall – and this year may represent the last, best chance for a while – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have to pull off something like driving that toaster through a car wash.

Pelosi’s Divided Caucus

There’s an old saying in politics that “My enemies I can handle, but God save me from my friends.” That’s the source of Pelosi’s infrastructure dilemma. She doesn’t need Republicans for much of anything. Democrats have the majority in the House, though it’s slimmer than before the 2020 election. If all Democrats vote for any infrastructure bill it passes, pure and simple. But it’s not that simple. Pelosi must keep the Democrats pulling in the same direction. In this instance, they’re the house divided.

Two factions make up the Democratic caucus

in the House. First, there are moderates like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and representatives from competitive, swing districts like Lizzie Fletcher of Houston and Tim Ryan of Ohio. Then, there are progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts.  The two factions get along sometimes and sometimes they don’t. They stuck together and passed the Biden COVID relief plan, but the love fest may end over infrastructure.   

The Senate has passed what’s usually called the “bipartisan” infrastructure bill, a $1 trillion plan that emphasizes traditional projects like roads and bridges. A bipartisan group of senators hashed it out and 19 Republicans supported it when it came up for a vote.

Moderates in the  House Democratic caucus want to pass that bill immediately and send it to President Biden for signature. Not so fast, say the progressives.

 

“Human” Infrastructure

Biden originally proposed an infrastructure package that not only included what’s in the bipartisan bill, but also significant new

spending on health care, education, immigration, child poverty, and climate change. Republicans, including those in the senate who voted for the bipartisan bill, oppose these programs. In trying to make sure an infrastructure bill passes, Biden agreed on

splitting the measure in two –

the bipartisan bill containing

traditional infrastructure spending

that could pass with enough

Republican support to break a senate filibuster and a bigger nontraditional bill Democrats might have a chance at passing with only   Democratic votes through what’s called budget reconciliation.

The plan had been for the House to act on the bipartisan bill, leaving the president and

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer the job of wooing moderate Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema. They might vote for the

“human” infrastructure bill and they might not.  Both say they don’t like the cost, about $3.5 trillion, though they have voted with the other Democratic senators on the procedural measures that allow consideration.

 

Progressives and Pelosi’s Tightrope Act

Democratic moderates, desperately seeking something they can run on in the perilous 2022 midterms, don’t want to chance that no infrastructure bill gets to the president’s desk this year. They’re afraid if the bipartisan bill doesn’t pass quickly, chances increase that no bill passes this year, the issue will become embroiled in next year’s campaigning, and all the work will have been for naught.

Progressives, however, want a guarantee the “human” bill will pass before they commit on

the bipartisan bill. They’ve concluded the best way of assuring that outcome is not voting for the bipartisan bill unless the senate first passes the “human” bill.  Pelosi must walk this tightrope – in essence drive Swigert’s toaster though the congressional car wash – so that an infrastructure package gets enacted in this Congress.  She knows that if Republicans take the House next year, no major legislation will get passed. It’s now or never.

       

Both progressives and moderates want things in the two bills. While some moderates have reservations about the price tag – and the taxes – associated with the “human” bill, most are generally sympathetic to its objectives. But the battle is about what the Democratic Party truly stands for. What hill will it die on? Both sides are heavily invested in their objectives and that’s what makes Pelosi’s job so difficult. She’s got to find a way through that car wash.                   

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR WOMEN MAKES US STRONGER

TITLE IX AND THE ASCENT OF THE AMERICAN FEMALE ATHLETE 

Without women, the United States Olympic team would have been in a world of hurt.  The Tokyo

games ended recently and the world now assesses the meaning of a COVID-19 marred Olympiad, while looking forward to next year’s winter games and the 2024 summer games in Paris.

One thing stands out about the American effort in

Tokyo. U.S. women made their presence felt. They captured over 58% of the medals Americans won. That didn’t just happen. It directly resulted from action American legislators took almost 50 years ago. The success of U.S. female athletes shows what can happen with a dedicated commitment to equal opportunity. It offers lessons that apply across society.

The Governmental Action was Title IX

Mostly without anyone looking, Congress in 1972 amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act with a

provision that said, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.…”  Before that enactment, one in 27 girls participated in school sports. Now that number exceeds two in five. Despite grudging compliance by school districts and universities with the requirement of equal funding for women’s sports, over the 35 years after Title IX’s passage, female involvement in high school sports jumped 904 % and college participation increased 456%.

We shouldn’t forget the opposition Title IX encountered in its early years, much of it from the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The

NCAA feared loss of power and control over lucrative men’s sports, especially football and basketball, if colleges and universities had to fund women’s sports programs. The NCAA first argued for exemption of college athletic departments from Title IX requirements, contending the departments

didn’t receive federal funds. That argument ignored the fact college athletic departments are part of institutions of higher education, nearly all of which receive federal money. They also argued equal sports funding for women would mean a loss of opportunities for men (a few men’s programs did get cut at individual schools, though overall men’s participation increased). Finally, the NCAA asserted Title IX equity formulas should exempt college football. 

Ultimately, courts and government agencies charged with enforcing Title IX rejected these contentions. The NCAA decided it couldn’t beat the women’s sports movement, so it took it over. In

1982 it forced out of existence the Association of Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW), the organization that had promoted women’s college sports while the NCAA was doing everything it could to undermine support for women’s programs. Even today, though, the NCAA often treats women’s sports teams as second-class citizens, as last winter’s weight room fiasco demonstrated. It provided men with state of the art weight training facilities at basketball tournament sites while giving women a few dumbbells. 

The Olympic Dividend

We can’t say Congress knew it was birthing an Olympic medals bonanza for the United States

when it passed Title IX. The law passed because of the efforts of a small, determined group of women (and a few men) who, in the late ‘60s, began agitating for federal and state legislation assuring women equal rights in education. As noted, few people paid much attention when it passed, though the NCAA soon perceived a threat. Then something funny happened.

By the early ‘80s, U.S. women began excelling in international competition in sports, like track and

field and basketball, previously dominated by the Soviet Union and eastern European countries like East Germany (many of those eastern Europeans probably were on steroids, but that’s a subject for another day). All of a sudden U.S. women who’d gone through college and university programs started winning championships.

By the ‘80s and ‘90s, the U.S. was producing female stars, like Florence Griffith-Joyner and Jackie Joyner-Kersee in track and field and basketball greats like Cheryl Miller and Dawn Staley. In 1996, the U. S. women’s basketball team kicked off a gold medal streak that has reached seven and shows no signs of ending, despite the likely retirements of five-time gold medalists Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi.

In Tokyo, the American team won 113 medals (China finished second with 88). Women won 66 of

the U.S. total. Had the American women been a nation, they would have placed fourth in the overall medal count. Since 2012, American women have won the majority of U.S. Olympic medals.

 

Pride and Inspiration– for all Americans

Women can take great pride in what U.S. women

athletes have accomplished in the Olympics, as can men. Those are our sisters, daughters, granddaughters, nieces, even wives, winning those medals. Their achievements should inspire everyone.  We’re reminded of what Arkansas football coach Sam Pittman told his players after the Arkansas women’s basketball team upset perennial power Connecticut last winter. “They wear the same logo on their uniforms we do,” Pittman said. “Let’s be like them.” 

We also can take pride in the progress American women have made in Olympic sports since the advent of Title IX because of what that progress says about our country. The law’s role in the development of American female athletes shows what can happen when a nation decides it will treat

all its citizens fairly and equally. Title IX, especially when juxtaposed with the NCAA’s obstructionism, stands as an example of what happens when societies don’t engage in zero-sum game thinking. Every time someone gains something doesn’t mean someone else must lose something. The rise of the American female athlete lifts US all and serves as a model for the world.            

ANDREW CUOMO’S EXIT: A TALE OF TWO PARTIES – ONE REPUBLICAN, ONE DEMOCRAT - YOU CHOOSE

Two things happened Tuesday, August 10, in which Democrats – and the nation – could take

pride. First, the U.S. Senate passed President Biden’s $1.2 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill. Second, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation in the wake of a sexual harassment scandal. The infrastructure deal isn’t done. The bill that passed the Senate may not clear the House unless Biden and his allies can pass a companion $3.5 trillion “human infrastructure” bill through budget reconciliation. That means we’ll have opportunities for talking about infrastructure for months.

We want to talk about the Cuomo development now! It showed the fundamental difference in our

two major political parties. Cuomo’s situation provided an apples-to-apples comparison of how Democrats and Republicans handle sexual harassment. Both have faced exams on sexual

harassment charges against one (or more) of their stars. With Cuomo’s announced departure, Democrats, in our view, passed their test. Republicans flunked the same exam numerous times.

The fact of this starkly different result makes even clearer just how much our political system has changed, and not for the better. The parties look like they evolved in separate societies; that they didn’t come from a common tradition in which decency, civility, accountability, and dedication to the rule of law triumph over the imperative of retaining power.

The Cuomo Challenge

Andrew Cuomo hails from a powerful political

family. He’s accomplished a great deal in politics on his own. His father, Mario Cuomo, served three terms as New York governor, perpetually flirting with running for president and delivering eloquent convention speeches in 1984 and 1992 that stirred Democratic hearts nationwide. Andrew Cuomo served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton administration, New York attorney general, and nearly three terms as New York’s governor. He’s been an immensely effective political operative, to the point of leaving office with an $18 million campaign war chest. He’s, also, been known as someone you don’t cross in New York politics.

Despite the fear Andrew Cuomo once struck, there he was on August 10 announcing he’d  step aside,

effective 14 days later. He left to a chorus of “Amens” from local, state, and national Democrats. Unfinished business remained: (1) post-resignation impeachment proceedings that could permanently bar him from office; (2) criminal investigations; and (3) civil suits brought by his alleged harassment victims. Legislative leaders appeared genuinely divided over the first question. They must consider Cuomo’s potential complicity in a nursing home scandal and ethical

transgressions involving a book deal. They found themselves torn between moving on and a desire for accountability. Some former prosecutors thought the criminal cases might go away. The civil suits, however, will go forward and probably get settled when Cuomo pulls out his checkbook.   

 

Democratic Unity

Democrats forced Cuomo from office. First, fellow Democrat, Attorney General Letitia James,

conducted the investigation and authored the damning report that forced his hand. Second, New York’s political leadership quickly called for Cuomo’s resignation. They’re all Democrats – U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand,  New YorkCity Mayor Bill de Blasio, and strong majorities in the state legislature. After the James report, they all said Cuomo should leave.  Third, President Biden weighed in early, asserting that if the James investigationproved the allegations against Cuomo, he should resign. Biden restated that position once the report came out. It showed credible evidence supporting the allegations of 11 women who charged Cuomo with offensive touching, creation of a hostile work environment in his office, and other transgressions. 

The Democratic unity left Cuomo no running room. Nobody defended him. As legislative impeachment machinery moved into high gear, Cuomo ran out of options. Timing represented the major surprise in the August 10 resignation announcement.  Many expected he’d leave eventually, but most observers thought the combative Cuomo would fight long and hard in an effort to hang on as long as he could.

 

And Republicans?

As suggested, we believe the most important aspect of the Cuomo resignation story resides in the difference between how Democrats reacted to his difficulties versus how Republicans handled similar situations. First, of course, there’s former President Donald Trump. Must we reiterate the facts of the Access Hollywood tape and the Stormy Daniels payoff? Those Trump sins (and others) were arguably worse than Cuomo’s, but Republicans stood by him.  Had Republican leaders abandoned Trump in October 2016 after the Access Hollywood tape emerged, the nation likely would have been spared the disaster that was the Trump presidency.

Then, there are the Republican second stringers like

Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz, accused of sex trafficking in underage girls, and Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who allegedly helped cover up sexual abuse allegations in the Ohio State University wrestling program while he coached there. In each instance, Republican members of Congress and other GOP elected officials stood by these bad actors or remained silent, which is as bad (or worse).

We’ve said we think America needs two viable political parties arguing over ideas and policy.  We’ve also said we don’t need this Republican Party because it’s not interested in character ideas or policy, only in keeping power. The Cuomo affair demonstrated that we have one party that will police itself in the name of fidelity to our values and institutions.  The other party, as currently led and configured, won’t do that. It deserves that special place in hell for those who thrash those cherished values and institutions.  

                     

THE BILLIONAIRE SPACE RACE: WHAT PRICE EXPLORATION?

Fifty-two summers after America put the first men

on the moon, in 2021 a “space race” again captivated the nation. This one generated not the unity the events of 1969 did, but a variety of views that conjured up longstanding questions about equity and

privilege when juxtaposed against the lure of adventure in space. Our reactions reflected that, ranging from the innately practical, through middle range theories, to the spiritual.

This race involved privately funded space forays that to some seemed like joyrides for the rich.  On

July 11, English entrepreneur Richard Branson flew on his company’s Virgin Galactic spaceplane above the 50-mile altitude the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recognizes as the beginning of space. 

Nine days later, the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, Amazon chairman Jeff Bezos and three

others used his company’s Blue Origin rocket  and spacecraft for a ten-minute suborbital flight to an altitude of 66 miles. Bezos and his crew essentially mimicked NASA’s 1961 suborbital missions by Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom, America’s first men in space.

      

Woodson: First, Pay Your Fair Share of Taxes

Jeff Bezos’s space explorations don’t excite me. I 

view this as I view dead beat dads who drive expensive vehicles but don’t make child support payments.

According to ProPublica, a nonprofit news organization that investigates abuses of power, Bezos’s wealth exploded by $3.8 billion in 2007.  In that year and in 2011, he paid no federal income taxes. Between 2006 and 2018, his wealth increased by $127 billion and he paid a .98 per cent tax rate. During the same period, the median household in the United States earned $70,000 per year and paid a 14 per cent tax rate.

Following his flight, Bezos made unintelligible comments about Americans one day traveling into space when the earth becomes unlivable. A seat on that first flight went to the highest bidder at $28 million. That seems out of reach for most Americans.

Bezos said later, “I want to thank every Amazon employee and every Amazon customer because you guys paid for all this.” Mr. Bezos, Americans paid for “all this.” We held the country together with our tax dollars while you withheld yours for your private project.

Robert Reich, President Clinton’s first labor secretary, responded, “Amazon workers don’t need Bezos to thank them. They need him to stop union busting – and pay them what they deserve.”

Bezos should pay his fair share of taxes and let the American people decide when they want to spend money on space exploration. We need him to help the rest of us strengthen our social safety net, save the planet from greenhouse gases, and rebuild our crumbling roads, bridges, and schools.       

Rob:  A Mixed Bag

Few Americans cared more about space exploration than I did during the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days. I rose at the crack of dawn for launches, missed school a few times, and could name every

astronaut in NASA’s first four groups. I was into it. I still am. I believe space exploration benefits humankind in general and the United States in particular through technological advancement, national security, and scientific progress.

Space exploration, manned and unmanned, can help us address problems like climate change, energy inefficiency, and manufacturing processes. I do not, therefore, condemn the efforts of billionaires as they vie for a role in space exploration.  As one commentator pointed out after the Bezos flight, many things we take for granted began with a wealthy person experimenting with something that seemed far-fetched and just another pleasure for the idle rich. SCHEDULED commercial air service? Nah, that’ll never work.  

Having said that, I’m not unsympathetic to the arguments of the critics, including my brother Walker. Both those who contend billionaires should spend their resources on other things (like higher

wages for their employees) and those who argue space exploration is a job for government have a point. I thought about that as I watched Bezos take off. But, it was still fun. I’m a sucker for rocket launches. Always have been. Always will be.      

Henry:  Discovery

I don’t find billionaires investing in space exploration difficult. It’s not my focus in this post. I agree with Woodson’s sentiment and  hope those moneyed interests will use their funds to invest in space exploration and in practical and immediate efforts that benefit humankind. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The issue reminds me of the love I have had, and still have, for flight and space exploration.

As a kid I collected model airplanes and subscribed to every publication I could on flight and space. My

junior high career book detailed a career in the Air Force as a test pilot and space explorer. I sought appointment to the Air Force Academy to further that dream, but my senators weren’t ready.

Today, my cell phone contains Skyview, NASA, Skywalk, and Satellite Tracker apps. I may have

cared more about space exploration than Rob during the early days. I agree with him on the benefits of space exploration. An aspect of the human spirit demands this stretch of the imagination and investigation of the difficult and

seemingly impossible. My longing tugs at philosophical and spiritual components. That we still reach for the stars strengthens my faith in our ability to carve a path toward our destiny. We are a part of all that space contains.

              If in a twinkle lies eternity

               and all we discover is known

               all encompassing must be the Power

               to hold us and time for so long

 

                If I am stretched from boundary to boundary

                and yet can be reduced to less than a single atom

                where lies that in between for all 

                and rushes forth for each of us to complete

 

                If we are but a single thought

                strung throughout Eternity

                of what wonderful thread

                to form us are we sewn